> > > That statement is meant to scare people away from modifying the lower fs :)> > > I tortured unionfs quite a bit, and it can oops but it takes some effort.> > But isn't it then potential DOS? If you happen to union two filesystems> > and an untrusted user has write access to both original filesystem and> > the union, then you say he'd be able to produce oops? That does not> > sound very secure to me... And if any secure use of unionfs requires> > limitting access to the original trees, then I think it's a good reason> > to implement it in unionfs itself. Just my 2 cents.> > You mean somebody like, say, a perfectly innocent process working on the> NFS server or some other client that is oblivious to the existence of> unionfs stacks on your particular machine?> To me, this has always sounded like a showstopper for using unionfs with> a remote filesystem.

Expecting sysadmins to know/prevent this seems like expecting quite alot from them. Sounds like a show stopper to me :-(.... Pavel-- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/